Jackson v Western Australia Police - [2014] WASC 72

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: JACKSON -v- WESTERN AUSTRALIA POLICE [2014] WASC 72

CORAM: COMMISSIONER SLEIGHT

HEARD: 4 MARCH 2014

DELIVERED : 4 MARCH 2014

PUBLISHED : 12 MARCH 2014

FILE NO/S: SJA 1159 of 2013

BETWEEN: COLIN MARK JACKSON
Appellant
AND
WESTERN AUSTRALIA POLICE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE P M HEANEY & MAGISTRATE M S KING
File No  :PE 6046 of 2013, PE 60647 of 2013, PE 6048 of 2013

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appeal against decisions of magistrates - Refusing application for trial by jury under the Magna Carta - Whether Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear appeal

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Code (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Ms C E Brandstater

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Chia Gee v Martin [1905] HCA 70; (1905) 3 CLR 649
Glew v White [2012] WASCA 138
Pengelly v Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire [2014] WASCA 5
Quan Yick v Hinds [1905] HCA 10; (1905) 2 CLR 345
Rogers v Squire (1978) 23 ALR 111
Shaw v The State of Western Australia Attorney General Mr Jim McGinty [2004] WASC 144
Vincent v Ah Yeng (1906) 8 WALR 145
COMMISSIONER SLEIGHT:
(This judgment was delivered extempore and was edited from the transcript.)

The appellant, Mr Jackson, was charged in the Magistrates Court with three offences, namely:
1.That on 27 November 2013 at Serpentine, Mr Jackson unlawfully trespassed contrary to s 70A(2) of the Criminal Code (WA).
2.On the same date and place Mr Jackson wilfully obstructed a person then lawfully charged with the execution of a warrant lawfully issued by the Supreme Court, contrary to s 151 of the Criminal Code.
3.On the same date and place Mr Jackson obstructed a public officer, in the performance of the officer's function contrary to s 172(2) of the Criminal Code.
On 12 December 2013 the charges came before his Honour Magistrate P M Heaney in the Perth Magistrates Court and on that occasion Mr Jackson 'demanded' a trial by jury under 's 29 of the Magna Carta'. The learned magistrate dismissed the application on the grounds that the Magna Carta did not apply. The proceedings were adjourned to the Armadale Magistrates Court being the court closest to the place where the alleged offences took place.
On 17 December 2013, the charges against Mr Jackson came before his Honour Magistrate M S King in the Armadale Magistrates Court. Mr Jackson renewed his application to have a trial by jury under 's 29 of the Magna Carta'. The learned magistrate on this occasion also rejected the application.
His Honour Magistrate King considered that all of the charges were for summary offences and remanded the matters through to 11 February 2014 for the allocation of trial hearing dates. With…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jackson v Western Australia Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] WASC 72
Decision Date: 12 MARCH 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jackson v Western Australia Police, the appellant sought to appeal a decision made by a magistrate declining to grant an application for trial by jury under the Magna Carta. The appellant, Jackson, was charged with multiple offences including resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. He applied to be tried by a jury, claiming that the Magna Carta entitled him to such a trial. The magistrate dismissed the application, leading Jackson to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Magna Carta, particularly the provisions relating to trial by jury. The court had to determine whether the Magna Carta is in force in Western Australia and, if so, whether it provides a right to trial by jury in criminal cases. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear Jackson's appeal against the magistrate's decision.

The court held that the Magna Carta is not in force in Western Australia and therefore does not confer any rights, including the right to trial by jury. The court explained that the Magna Carta was not received as part of the common law of Western Australia and that the common law right to trial by jury in criminal cases had been abrogated by statute. Consequently, the magistrate's decision to refuse the application for trial by jury was correct. The court also found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the appeal was from an interlocutory decision of the magistrate and not a final judgment. The appeal was dismissed.

The court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the appeal. The decision underscores the limited scope of the Magna Carta's application in Australian law and the importance of statutory provisions in determining the mode of trial in criminal cases.

Orders